By Mariam Atinuke Abdulfatai
The interpretation and application of section 20 of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Act (AJA) continues to evolve, with recent judicial developments suggesting that the Federal High Court is taking an even firmer position in asserting its exclusive admiralty jurisdiction. This development represents not merely a continuation, but a significant expansion, of the court’s long-standing approach to maritime disputes involving foreign arbitration.
This commentary builds on my earlier article, “An Examination of Section 20 of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Act and Its Impact on the Jurisdiction of the Federal High Court,” published on SSRN, where I undertook a detailed doctrinal and case-based review of judicial authorities in which the Federal High Court consistently refused to stay proceedings pending a foreign seated arbitration. The article is available here:https://www.linkedin.com/posts/mariam-abdulfatai-843116181_an-examination-of-section-20-of-the-aja-activity-7410325542258003968-Y7OC?utm_medium=ios_app&rcm=ACoAACro2jMBA5Qxj4MKyeGDBcq8FUyCY7h4ebg&utm_source=social_share_send&utm_campaign=copy_link
That article analysed, among others, Fugro Subsea LLC V. Petrology Ltd (2021) LPELR 53133 CA an authority that continues to play a central role in shaping the court’s reasoning, including in the recent decision discussed below.
The Established Position: Refusal of Stay of Proceedings
A recurring factual pattern has dominated admiralty litigation before the Federal High Court. Maritime contracts particularly charter party agreements and bills of lading frequently provide for arbitration as the dispute resolution mechanism, with seats often designated outside Nigeria. Upon the crystallisation of disputes, one party commences proceedings before the Federal High Court, while the other applies for a stay of proceedings pending the conclusion of foreign arbitration.
As examined in my earlier SSRN article, the Federal High Court has, with remarkable consistency, refused such applications for stay where the dispute falls within the ambit of section 20 of the AJA. The court’s reasoning is anchored on the principle that maritime disputes with a Nigerian nexus, or those expressly captured by section 20, fall within its exclusive jurisdiction and cannot be ousted by private contractual arrangements.
This position has not remained confined to the trial court. On appeal, the Court of Appeal has repeatedly affirmed these decisions, thereby reinforcing the jurisdictional primacy of the Federal High Court in admiralty matters. As at date, there appears to be no Supreme Court decision to the contrary, although it is reasonable to assume that some of these issues are currently pending before the apex court.
A New Dimension: Section 20 Tested Against a Foreign Arbitral Award
As at 30 January 2026, the jurisprudence on section 20 took a notable and unprecedented turn. For the first time, the provision was tested not only against an arbitration clause or an application for stay of proceedings, but against the recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award.
In Suit No. FHC/L/CS/679/2019: PS Offshore (Nig.) Ltd v Midden System (Nig.) Ltd & Anor, the award creditor applied to the Federal High Court for the recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award rendered in Singapore by the Singapore Chambers of Maritime Arbitration (SCMA), arising from a dispute under a charter party agreement.
In a decision with far-reaching implications, Honourable Justice A. O. Faji refused to recognise and enforce the award, holding that enforcement would be contrary to Nigerian public policy agreeing with the submission of the Respondent’s counsel. The court reasoned that the subject matter of the award was a maritime dispute falling squarely within the scope of section 20 of the AJA, and reliance was placed on the Fugro decision previously examined in detail in my SSRN paper as authority for the proposition that such disputes cannot be taken outside the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court.
Implications: A Firm Consolidation of Admiralty Jurisdiction
This decision marks a decisive escalation in the Federal High Court’s approach. The court has moved beyond refusing to stay proceedings in favour of foreign arbitration and has now extended its jurisdictional protection to the enforcement stage, declining to recognise foreign arbitral awards where the underlying dispute falls within section 20 of the AJA.
The implication is clear: the Federal High Court is jealously guarding its admiralty jurisdiction, not only at the point of litigation commencement, but also at the point where arbitral outcomes seek domestic recognition and enforcement.
Concluding Thoughts
My view though admittedly open to debate is that this decision is legally defensible within the existing framework of Nigerian law. Section 20 of the AJA is couched in mandatory terms, and the reasoning adopted by the court is consistent with its earlier jurisprudence, as well as with appellate endorsement.
Should the Supreme Court affirm this trajectory, Nigeria could be firmly positioned as an emerging institutional arbitration hub, particularly for maritime disputes with strong local connections. Such a development would align with the National Arbitration Policy, foster confidence in Nigerian arbitration institutions and practitioners, and reduce the persistent reliance on foreign seats of arbitration.
Seen in this light, the decision does not represent hostility towards arbitration, but rather a re-centring of arbitration within Nigeria’s legal and institutional framework, especially in areas where the legislature has expressly vested jurisdiction in Nigerian courts.
